Trumpian Pot Stirring Getting Results? Also, War On Iran?

I’ve been reading with bemusement about political developments in … Greenland (population, about 56K)? Apparently they do have politics there, and they even have geopolitical concerns. The basic idea is that Greenland is self governing in local matters but external affairs are handled by the Kingdom of Denmark. The actual Greenlanders, Inuit, would prefer to be either fully independent, or more independent—a 2008 non-binding referendum to that effect passed with 76% (only 7.5% of Greenlanders are Danish). The current prime minister, Múte Bourup Egede, is in favor of independence:

Egede is the chairman of Inuit Ataqatigiit, which is a democratic socialist political party in Greenland. Like the party, Egede is an advocate for Greenlandic independence.

Now, Trump’s pot stirring appears to have revived the issue:

Greenland’s leader wants independence from Denmark after Trump suggested buying island

Greenland’s prime minister has reiterated his call for independence from Denmark after Donald Trump suggested the US could acquire the Arctic territory. “It is about time that we ourselves take a step and shape our future, also with regard to who we will cooperate closely with, and who our trading partners will be,” Mute Egede said in his new year’s speech.

…

Copenhagen announced in December it would boost defence spending in Greenland, the world’s largest island, by €1.3 billion (£1.04 billion) - just hours after Mr Trump said that Washington establishing “ownership and control” of the territory was an “absolute necessity”.

Greenland was a Danish colony until 1953, when it was redefined as a district of Denmark, and established an independent parliament in 1979. However, Copenhagen continues to enact control over its foreign and defence policy.

Calls for independence in Greenland have grown in recent decades, partly due to revelations of misconduct by Danish authorities during the 20th century, including an involuntary birth control campaign launched in the 1960s.

And we thought involuntary birth control was only a Chicom thing? It seems the Danish colonialists figured one way to limit native restlessness was to limit the number of natives. Or maybe it was about the climate or the environment—things that only natives, but not Danes, affected:

Inuit Greenlanders demand answers over Danish birth control scandal

Denmark and Greenland have formally agreed to launch a two-year investigation into historic birth control practices carried out for many years on Inuit Greenlanders by Danish doctors.

Interestingly, Egede

did not specifically reference Mr Trump or his comments in his latest speech.

That, combined with Egede’s reference to Greenland taking control over “who we will cooperate closely with, and who our trading partners will be” suggests to me that Egede and his party may be at least open to doing a deal with Trump and the US. Why not shop around for the best deal possible?

---

We’ve all been reading about how the Zhou regime has been doing everything possible to sabotage America before Trump is inaugurated. They’re doing this, interestingly, while Zhou seems to be on a permanent vacation. How does that work? Your guess is as good as mine, but they’re doing everything from banning natural gas operated water heaters to … trying to start a war with Iran.

That’s what Axios is reporting. Zhou’s “inner circle” is on the job, which probably means that Zhou doesn’t really know about it—like so many other things he’s probably only dimly aware of, beyond ice cream time. So what this really means may be that the “inner circle” is trying to get the Pentagon to go along. I turn to Reason for the story, and this is about half of the article—click on REASON for the full article:

Is Biden Teeing Up an Iran War for Trump?
Reason ^ | 1.3.2025 | Matthew Petti

Trump was considered reckless for wanting to start a war at the end of his term. Now, Biden is doing the same.

President Joe Biden has less than a month in office, but that might be enough time to leave a very big mess on President-elect Donald Trump's desk. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan presented Biden with plans to bomb Iranian nuclear sites before the end of his term "in a meeting several weeks ago," Axios reported on Thursday. A source told Axios that Biden's inner circle believes that he has both "an imperative and an opportunity to strike" now.

The same day, former Biden administration official Richard Nephew published an essay in Foreign Affairs arguing that "the case against military action is not so neat" anymore and that the United States "may have little choice but to attack Iran—and soon." Nephew had once been a harsh critic of Trump's attempts to pressure and threaten Iran. Now, like many other Democrats, he seems to be shifting from a dove to a hawk.

The Biden camp is following a path trod by the first Trump administration. Throughout Trump's last year in office, his own inner circle talked about "military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons if Trump were to lose the election," The New Yorker reported. A week after he lost the election, Trump asked for military options, The New York Times confirmed. The final discussion happened exactly four years ago—on January 3, 2021—when Trump's advisers agreed that it was "too late to hit them," according to The New Yorker.

In other words, the president starting a war that close to the end of his term would be severely overstepping his mandate.

At the time, Biden and his supporters called Trump a reckless warmonger. In January 2020, Biden accused Trump of "bringing us dangerously close to starting a brand new" war. In November 2020, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.) cited Trump's interest in attacking Iran as an example of him endangering the "smooth, stable transition" of power. In December 2020, columnist Tom Nichols wrote in The Atlantic that there was a "real danger" that Trump would try "saddling Joe Biden with another war in the Middle East."

Ironically, Biden's advisers are now using the reduction of Iranian threats to make the case for war. Over the past two months, Israel has worn Iranian-backed forces down in Lebanon, and rebels forced Iranian troops out of Syria, a pair of successes that Biden took credit for. But at a conference last month, Sullivan warned that Iran's regional weakness might push it to develop a nuclear weapon. And in private, Sullivan has been arguing that the same weakness would "decrease the risk of Iranian retaliation" to a U.S. attack, according to Axios.

A victory that immediately leads to an even bigger war is some victory indeed.

Sullivan's bet on a limited war—that Iran would not shoot back if shot at—would be an extremely risky gamble. And even Nephew, who has warmed up to the case for war, does not believe that bombing the Iranian nuclear program would be a one-time job. "To permanently quash Iran's nuclear aspirations, the United States may have to attack Iran in perpetuity or carry out a much larger assault—one that takes out elements of the country's security forces or regime," he wrote in Foreign Affairs.

“War in perpetuity”. Huh. That sounds a lot like “forever war.” A distinctly Anglo-Zionist concept. Hopefully the Pentagon will JUST SAY NO.